Florida International University FIU Digital Commons MA in Linguistics Final Projects College of Arts, Sciences & Education 2017 Long-Distance Reflexivization and Logophoricity in the Dargin Language Muminat Kerimova Florida International University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/linguistics_ma Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Kerimova, Muminat, "Long-Distance Reflexivization and Logophoricity in the Dargin Language" (2017). MA in Linguistics Final Projects. 3. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/linguistics_ma/3 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in MA in Linguistics Final Projects by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVIZATION AND LOGOPHORICITY IN THE DARGIN LANGUAGE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in LINGUISTICS by Muminat Kerimova 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVIZATION AND LOGOPHORICITY IN THE DARGIN LANGUAGE by Muminat Kerimova Florida International University, 2017 Miami, Florida Professor Ellen Thompson, Major Professor The study of anaphora challenges us to determine the conditions under which the pronouns of a language are associated with possible antecedents. One of the theoretical questions is whether the distribution of pronominal forms is best explained by a syntactic, semantic or discourse level analysis. A more practical question is how we distinguish between anaphoric elements, e.g. what are the borders between the notions of pronouns, locally bound reflexives and long-distance reflexives? The study analyzes the anaphora device saj in Dargin that is traditionally considered to be a long-distance reflexivization language. We show that the previous research did not cover all uses of saj that are essential for the notion of long-distance reflexivization and logophoricity. The course of analysis leads to the conclusion that saj does not have the syntactic restrictions imposed on long-distance reflexives or logophors in other languages. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Anaphora. Binding Theory ................................................................................2 Reflexivization Theory. ....................................................................................5 Long-Distance Reflexives and Logophors.......................................................12 Logophoricity and Empathy ............................................................................19 Previous Research on Dargin Anaphora ..........................................................21 III. CURRENT ANALYSIS Defining the Problem .......................................................................................27 Logophoric and Reflexive Behavior ................................................................31 Anaphoric and Pronominal Behavior...............................................................37 IV. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................39 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................40 I. INTRODUCTION The study of anaphora challenges us to determine the conditions under which the pronouns of a language are associated with possible antecedents. One of the theoretical questions is whether the distribution of pronominal forms is best explained by a syntactic, semantic or discourse level analysis. A more practical question is how we distinguish between anaphoric elements, e.g. what are the borders between the notions of pronouns, locally bound reflexives and long-distance reflexives? The study analyzes the anaphora device saj in Dargin that is traditionally considered to be a long-distance reflexivization language. We show that the previous research did not cover all uses of saj that are essential for the notion of long-distance reflexivization and logophoricity. The course of analysis leads to the conclusion that saj does not have the syntactic restrictions imposed on long-distance reflexives or logophors in other languages. The work is structured as follows. In section 2 we review the literature on binding, long-distance reflexivization, logophoricity in several languages and the previous discussion about Dargin anaphora. In section 3 we analyze the behavior of saj in the light of the definitions of different anaphoric devices given in section 2 and test saj to identify its linguistic status. Section 4 is the conclusion. II. LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Anaphora. Binding Theory. The word anaphora is translated from Greek as “carrying back” (Huang, 2007:1). The linguistic term is used to refer to “a relation between two linguistic elements, wherein the interpretation of one (called an anaphor) is in some way determined by the interpretation of the other (called an antecedent)” (Huang 2007). In broad understanding, the categories of nominal that are regulated by the principles of anaphora are empty categories, pronouns, reflexives and reciprocals, names and descriptions (called R(eferential)- expressions). Huang (2007) classifies anaphora on the basis of syntactic categories (NP- anaphora, N-anaphora, VP-anaphora – both lexical and empty categories), truth conditions (referential anaphora, bound-variable anaphora, E-type anaphora, ‘lazy’ anaphora, bridging cross-reference anaphora), contexts (use of anaphora in encyclopedic knowledge context, physical context, linguistic context) and discourse reference-tracking systems (gender/class systems, obviation, switch-reference systems, switch-function systems and inference systems). An interested reader is referred to Huang (2007) for a short overview of this classification, or Karttunen (1976), Clark (1977), Ariel (1990), Comrie (1989b), Bloomfield (1962), Jacobsen (1967), Foley & Van Valin (1984) for a more detailed introduction to some of the types of anaphora. The traditional classification of Dargin, the language under study, as a long-reflexivization language leads us to reduce the scope of the discussion to lexically covert R-expressions, pronouns and reflexives. These can be exemplified in the following English sentences: (1) John likes himself (where the reflexive himself obligatorily refers to John as its antecedent) 2 (2) John likes him (where the pronoun him obligatorily refers to someone other than John) (3) He likes John (where the name John refers to someone other than he). In order to formulate and systematize the distribution of exemplified anaphoric elements, Chomsky (1981) proposed the following Binding Principles within his Binding Theory (henceforth, BT): Principle (or Condition) A. An anaphor is bound in its governing category; Principle (or Condition) B. A pronominal is free in its governing category; Principle (or Condition) C. An R-expression is free; where binding is defined as: α binds β iff i. α is in an argument position, ii. α c-commands β, iii. α and β are coindexed; and c-command is defined as: α c-commands β iff i. α does not dominate β, ii. β does not dominate α, iii. the first branching node dominating α also dominates β; and Governing Category (GC) is defined as: α is a GC for β iff α is the minimal category containing β, a governor ofβ, and a 3 SUBJECT accessible to β; α is accessible to β iff α is in the c-command domain of β and α and β are co-indexed. In (1), the reflexive himself follows Principle A and is bound to and co-indexed with the c-commanding DP John: (1’) Johni looked at himselfi In (2), the pronoun him obeys Principle B and cannot be interpreted as co-referential (or co-indexed) with its c-commanding DP: (2’) Johni looked at himj In (3), the R-expression John is always free in any domain. In English, however, one can find sentences like (4), where apparently the reflexive is not bound in its local domain, in violation of Principle A: (4) Maxi boasted that the Queen invited Lucie and himselfi for a drink. (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993) Reflexivity Theory. 4 Authors have argued that in other languages, in addition, one can find many examples that cannot be explained by the original BT. For example, Dutch has reflexives – simplex anaphor (SE-anaphor) zich and complex anaphor (SELF-anaphor) zichzelf in addition to a pronoun (Reuland, 2011:100): (5) Willemi wast zichi/zichzelfi. William washes self/himself. Such a three-way anaphoric system is quite common in the world languages. SE- anaphors also exist, for example, in Japanese (zibun): (6) Keiko-wa zibun-o aisite-iru. Keikoi loves SEi. (Huang 2007) Cross-linguistically, SE-anaphors are morphologically simple (mono-morphemic). SELF- anaphors can be either of the form SE-SELF or Pronominal-SELF, or both, as in Scandinavian languages. (Reuland, 2011). Anaphors are usually in complementary distribution with pronouns in the local domain. An example of this from Russian is the following (Testelets & Toldova 1998): (7) Oni vidit sebjai/sam sebjai/*egoi Hei sees selfi/himselfi/*himi Further, SE-anaphors usually lack φ-features: person, gender, number (Reuland 2011, and others). Another example from Russian: 5 (8) Ja vižu sebja. / Ty vidiš’ sebja. / On vidit sebja. / Ona vidit sebja. / Oni vid’jat sebja. I see self. / You see self.